Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-03-26/News and notes

← Back to News and notes

Discuss this story

I like the effect you get with <div class="letterhead">.

Is there a list somewhere of similar effects I can use? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:I've added documentation to {{quote box}} showing how you can get this effect. Due to limitations of the "quote box" template, it only looks good on a white background. Someone familiar with CSS could easily create a new template called Template:Letterhead box based on the "quote box" template to overcome these issues. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The winner picture is very nice as a picture but I strongly feel that images in Commons shouldn't be evaluated on an artistic rationale only. I dislike the fact that the picture is not of a real thing. I also dislike that other circumstances around pictures are not taken into account, for instance some pictures had to be taken in difficult places (Chilean desert) or reflect facts that are not easy to capture (driking birds, calves at birth). Other images have considerable usability (Sun or Vatican City maps). I'd like a contest on Wikipedic rather than aestethic values. B25es (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Q: How many photographers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I like the image, and it is, more or less, a real thing. The replacement of the lamp holder with the screw thread is a minor tweak, which could have been avoided by a little engineering, mounting and powering the bulb with a rod in the Z axis. There is no real benefit in asking photographers to do this sort of thing, instead of a little picture editing. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 16:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC).
  
  • But how, exactly, is it of encyclopedic benefit to make it appear that no electricity is going through the bulb when the effect of electricity is being shown? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Proposal to use Filament burns through as an example in Photo manipulation. Discuss at Talk:Photo manipulation#Using the 2013 Commons picture of the year as an example?. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Small correction, "involving an aircraft pistol" should be "involving an airsoft pistol". SchreiberBike talk 03:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  Corrected. You can make these corrections yourself if you want to, just explain the change in the edit summary, comments section, or talk page so they don't get reverted. Note: When making changes to the current edition of the Signpost, please check the single-page edition to see if it picked up the change and purge or regenerate it if necessary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• The effect of making the light bulb look like it has no electricity going into it might be done another way. I recall The Three Stooges, probably Curly, being able to make light bulbs light up with no apparent source. Am I remembering that correctly? Also, Uncle Fester in The Addams Family TV series. I'm not sure about Uncle Fester in other versions.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• A Wikipedic (valued images in Commons parlance) photo contest might be interesting but this is a Commons contest, not a Wikipedia one. As such, it is run in line with Commons values and not those of a "foreign" project. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But Commons still has an educational mission. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • True, but (in this case) in much the same way that an art gallery has an educational mission: prettiness counts for something. Besides, it's a democratically selected image in a vote open to all Wikimedians, which, in practice, tends to mean English Wikipedians (as the largest demographic). Enough wikimedians thought this was best by their individual terms, real thing or not. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia

It is possible that some sources will not be accessible to the student, so the standard advice to use the sources that the Wikipedia article used might not work. The professor could require that the student actually see all sources used, in which case it wouldn't be fair to exclude Wikipedia as a source if the article were well-referenced.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is a Wiki, and since the edit history is preserved, it is better to reference a specific revision of an article than just "the article." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Did the first link in that article seriously go to Natural News? That kinda makes me want to dismiss the rest of the article outright. Silverseren^C 07:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • ...You're right. Wow. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)